Hi Ned,
At 12:25 24-08-2011, Ned Freed wrote:
That's not correct. The original text was worded fairly differently, also
referenced S/MIME, and mentioned the possibility of other signiatures.
I meant the previous replacement text that was suggested.
I don't have a problem with the approach the new text takes, but I don't
understand why the reference to S/MIME was dropped. It seems likely
it was an unintentional omission, and if so I suggest it be restored.
The reference to S/MIME may have been dropped unintentionally. I am
copying Dave as he suggested the replacement text. I noticed the
omission. I did not ask about it as nobody raised it as an issue. I
used text from your message [1] to respond to the DISCUSS. It looks
like I misread your message; you were actually arguing for the
original text to be retained without the compliance language.
Would this work for you:
"Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message
signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], S/MIME [RFC5751]
and can render the signature invalid. This, in turn, can affect
message handling by later receivers, such as filtering engines that
consider the presence or absence of a valid signature."
If you would like to suggest any change, I am open to it. I'll wait
a few hours in case the WG would like to comment.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG co-chair
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00756.html
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
